Subject: [Rserpool] a question about TCP as transport btw PU<->ES

From: Qiaobing Xie <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 21 May 2002 17:04:40 -0500

Hi, all,

I don't quite remember what we decided exactly at the last IETF about
whether to support TCP btw PU and ES (we still have text in section
2.2.3 in the arch draft to support TCP). Didn't we agree to support
non-SCTP transport *only* between PU and PE?

It would be simple and clean if we only allow SCTP for PU<->ES. But if
there is strong feeling from the WG that we also need to allow TCP for
PU<->ES, I can live with it, too.

Either case, we probably need to define a well-known port number for PU
to query an ES.

-Qiaobing

_______________________________________________
rserpool mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rserpool

---

From: Phillip Conrad <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 21 May 2002 18:31:32 -0400

>non-SCTP transport *only* between PU and PE?

Yes, that is my recollection.

>PU<->ES, I can live with it, too.

Totally in agreement on that point as well.

>Either case, we probably need to define a well-known port number for PU

Yes, I think we probably will.  Another option is to make  the port number 
a part of a DNS record where you look up the IP address(es) of the 
ES.    But I think a well-known port is a cleaner solution.

Phill

---

From: Phillip Conrad <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 21 May 2002 18:31:32 -0400

Phill

---

From: Michael Tuexen <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 22 May 2002 22:36:38 +0200

Qiaobing,

we agreed on TCP being an option for PU <-> ES communication,
because (consider a PE as a mobile phone) if a PE wants a
UDP or TCP based service it would need SCTP 'only' to do
name queries. Maureen thought that this might be not optimal.

Best regards
Michael

> Either case, we probably need to define a well-known port number for PU
[email-masked]

---

From: Michael Tuexen <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 22 May 2002 22:36:38 +0200

Qiaobing,

Best regards
Michael

---

From: Qiaobing Xie <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 22 May 2002 17:40:43 -0500

Michael,

This sounds reasonable to me. This can indeed make a "pure" PU much
lighter weighted. By "pure" PU I mean one that only does name
query/response and possibly reporting unreachable PEs.

I missed this in the current ENRP, will add text in the next ENRP
revision for this feature. Some text may also be needed for ASAP to
describe such a "pure" PU running only TCP.

regards,
-Qiaobing

---

From: Qiaobing Xie <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 22 May 2002 17:40:43 -0500

Michael,

regards,
-Qiaobing

---

From: Harrie Hazewinkel <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 22 May 2002 19:26:07 +0200

> Totally in agreement on that point as well.

Just a question, what is the reason it would only work (well) on SCTP
and why would it not work on TCP??
Maybe if we have an answer to this a better judgement can be made.
The more, since we allow TCP in some parts already (as mentioned above).

> Yes, I think we probably will.  Another option is to make  the port
> number a part of a DNS record where you look up the IP address(es) of the

I agree with that a well-known port is a better solution, but
I also believe that RSERPOOL should be able to handle non-standard
ports.

Harrie

---

From: Harrie Hazewinkel <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 22 May 2002 19:26:07 +0200

Harrie